The Most Foolish Theory in Physics

[ben m]

both of them equally have similarities with the background temperatures.

No they don't.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Thank you Dr. Trintignant and Shadron:

Eos,

Yes, there is a basis in Physics for these theories (actually, part of quantum mechanics theory). When you execute the dual slit experiment, the particles can go in either of the two slits, and indeed they are shown to go through both. However, if you set up something to look at them, then they pick a slit and stay with it. The particles have a two-state quantum choice to make, and the probabilities (when they are unobserved) are equal.

The problem is the interpretation of this result and what it implies about the world around us. The "Copenhagen Interpretation" says that one cannot say anything useful (real world) about particles until they actually choose a slit and pass through it. The "Path Integral" formulation by Feynmen says essentially the same thing, that the particle actually takes every path from the source to the screen (Feynmen stresses his formulation is only a mathematical tweak of Copenhagen, not anything different in reality). Schrodinger's Cat's state isn't known until the box is opened.

There are a slough of other interpretations, but one of them is the multiverse or "Many Worlds" interpretation: that every time a quantum decision is made the universe bifurcates into two universes, in which the particle goes one way in one, and the other way in the other. So every microsecond in time, a very huge number of alternate universes are "created", and that any possible series of events is indeed present in a universe somewhere. Schrodinger's cat is dead iin one universe, alive in another at the point where they split.

So multiple universes is one possible interpretation of what happens when a quantum choice is made. This is my understanding of it. Wikipedia is a fairly good source for all this; look up "many worlds", and "interpretation of quantum mechanics". Hugh Everett was the developer of this interpretation. Interestingly, according to a poll 58% of physicists favor the multiverse interpretation, including Feynman, Hawking and Gell-Mann (according to wiki).

You can tell why I'm more "into" biology. Theories there are far more testable and less "micro".

So, with my limited understanding, these theories are pretty much at a hypothesis stage still, being that nobody has proven or disproven on a "real world" level that any multi-universe actually exists?

 

[~enigma~]

So, with my limited understanding, these theories are pretty much at a hypothesis stage still, being that nobody has proven or disproven on a "real world" level that any multi-universe actually exists?

Well anecdotal evidence shows the OP is from a different universe with different physics.

 

[RussDill]

''We,'' as in ''the human race.''

Any chance you could be more specific on the claims of similarity between the "zero-point field", "dark energy", and CMB?

I'm familiar with observational relations between dark matter and CMB. I'm not familiar with an observed relations between dark energy, CMB, and/or a zero-point field.

 

[Ziggurat]

It could be explained by saying the CMB is the same as the Zero-Point Energy Field. We have also found similarities between dark energy and the zero-point field, and both of them equally have similarities with the background temperatures.

No. The CMB has nothing to do with zero-point energy. It is rather definitely NOT zero-point energy. It would not have a nonzero temperature blackbody spectrum if it were. You are evidently confusing the fact that the homogeneity of the CMB tells us something about the energy density of the universe (much of which is apparently dark energy) with the idea that the CMB is itself some sort of dark energy. The former is true, the latter is false. Trivially so, in fact, because we can see (literally) the CMB, but the definining feature of dark energy is that we cannot see it (hence the reason it's called dark). Dark energy and zero-point energy may be related, but the CMB is not either of them.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Well anecdotal evidence shows the OP is from a different universe with different physics.

 

[Wowbagger]

If the Big Bang theory is so foolish, then how come it has been so successful at predicting observations in the cosmos?

How come most of those who call a theory "foolish" are never able to develop anything that makes even more powerful predictions?!

 

[Singularitarian]

Any chance you could be more specific on the claims of similarity between the "zero-point field", "dark energy", and CMB?

I'm familiar with observational relations between dark matter and CMB. I'm not familiar with an observed relations between dark energy, CMB, and/or a zero-point field.

yes of course, so this also applies to the other posters above with arguments i am wrong.

the CMB is an almost uniform energy density in the universe existing as electromagnetic potential energy. The Cosmological Constant is also an all-permeating electromagnetic density of energy, so there is similarity 1. The Dark Energy has been tied to the mysterious zero-point energy field (for personal reference, visit PhD Doctor Wolf's website and ask him via a personal message of this success) - the linking of dark energy and the zero-point field is universally considered the same as the Cosmological Constant, and so, the electromagnetic similarities are vast, and maybe the same.

 

[Singularitarian]

If the Big Bang theory is so foolish, then how come it has been so successful at predicting observations in the cosmos?

How come most of those who call a theory "foolish" are never able to develop anything that makes even more powerful predictions?!

Because the universal laws may not allow us to reduce all of its complexities so easily. So in a sense, its become a general rule that the best theories are usually the most simplest.

 

[sol invictus]

the CMB is an almost uniform energy density in the universe existing as electromagnetic potential energy.

Wrong - it's not "potential" energy by any definition.

The Cosmological Constant is also an all-permeating electromagnetic density of energy, so there is similarity 1.

There is no reason to suppose the CC is electromagnetic in origin.

The Dark Energy has been tied to the mysterious zero-point energy field (for personal reference, visit PhD Doctor Wolf's website and ask him via a personal message of this success) - the linking of dark energy and the zero-point field is universally considered the same as the Cosmological Constant, and so, the electromagnetic similarities are vast, and maybe the same.

That has nothing to do with the issue, because the CMB has nothing to do with zero point energy (other than helping detect it).

The CMB consists of photons - radiation. It does contribute to the energy budget of the universe, but in a way totally different from vacuum energy. When the universe expands, photons lose energy for two reasons - their number density decreases, and their wavelength increases. So the energy density in radiation drops off like the linear size of the universe to the fourth power.

Vacuum energy density by definition doesn't change with expansion.

They have nothing to do with one another.

 

[Wowbagger]

Because the universal laws may not allow us to reduce all of its complexities so easily.

"Prove" it. Empirically.

What experiments can you propose to demonstrate your points?

So in a sense, its become a general rule that the best theories are usually the most simplest.

Close.

It is a more accurate rule that the best theories make the fewest unsupported assumptions.

You should think of Occam's Razor as an efficency of assumptions. Forget the common "most simplest" definition: That only confuses people, due to the large (and complex) number of definitions of "simple".

Big Bang theory, being backed up by consistent and persistent evidence, seems to meet Occam's Razor better than any alternative, at the moment.

But, if you disagree, please show us the powerful evidence of something else going on. If you can't, then you are not meeting Razor's standards.

 

[Singularitarian]

Wrong - it's not "potential" energy by any definition.



There is no reason to suppose the CC is electromagnetic in origin.



That has nothing to do with the issue, because the CMB has nothing to do with zero point energy (other than helping detect it).

The CMB consists of photons - radiation. It does contribute to the energy budget of the universe, but in a way totally different from vacuum energy. When the universe expands, photons lose energy for two reasons - their number density decreases, and their wavelength increases. So the energy density in radiation drops off like the linear size of the universe to the fourth power.

Vacuum energy density by definition doesn't change with expansion.

They have nothing to do with one another.

The definitions of the zero-point field, the homogeneous enegy filling-space is synonymous with the CMB-temperatures because it has these characteristics too. However as i said, scientists have managed to link the zero-point energy to another massive energy-playing role in the universe which takes up about 74%of all the energy, and that is the dark energy.

And there is a lot of the CMB which will be in a virtual potential state, this can only be expected from a quantum mechanical model.

By the way, you cannot be so firm believing energy does not appear in the vacuum upon expansion. Vacuum expansion according to big bang and even Fred Hoyles Steady State says that with expansion new energy is released into the vacuum. The zero-point energy goes against one of the most impotant thermodynamical laws where everything is conserved, and that you cannot create matter or energy, but the ZPF can, and does all the time.

 

[Singularitarian]

Here is the proof linking dark energy with the ZPF,

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

 

[edd]

The definitions of the zero-point field, the homogeneous enegy filling-space is synonymous with the CMB-temperatures because it has these characteristics too. However as i said, scientists have managed to link the zero-point energy to another massive energy-playing role in the universe which takes up about 74%of all the energy, and that is the dark energy.

Sol's already explained one of the two (at least) absolutely key aspects of the CMB which are completely at odds with the key aspects of dark energy.

1) their present day densities are completely different - the energy density in radiation is currently a very tiny fraction of the critical density, but the energy density in dark energy is the major fraction of the critical density
2) their equations of state are completely different (which is a large chunk of the reason for (1)) - and as radiation has such a completely different equation of state it cannot in any way be what is needed for dark energy - it's just way off the mark.

They're utterly utterly different, and claiming that they are fundamentally linked as you are does not make you look like you know what you're talking about at all.

 

[edd]

Here is the proof linking dark energy with the ZPF,

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

"Thus zero-point energy would appear to be identical with the mysterious dark energy, but unfortunately if the energy spectrum does continue up to the Planck frequency, there may be 120 orders of magnitude more energy per cubic centimeter than the observations of cosmic acceleration permit."
from your link. While people are still working on this problem, there isn't a consensus that it's been solved and therefore it would be distinctly premature to label a connection between dark energy and quantum mechanical vacuum energy as 'proven'.

It seems to be the best candidate right now, but despite that we still essentially don't know what dark energy is, even if we might make some not too unreasonable guesses.

 

[DazzaD]

By the way, you cannot be so firm believing energy does not appear in the vacuum upon expansion. Vacuum expansion according to big bang and even Fred Hoyles Steady State says that with expansion new energy is released into the vacuum. The zero-point energy goes against one of the most impotant thermodynamical laws where everything is conserved, and that you cannot create matter or energy, but the ZPF can, and does all the time.

Energy density I believe is what Sol mentioned.

Vacuum energy density by definition doesn't change with expansion.

The zero-point energy goes against one of the most impotant thermodynamical laws where everything is conserved, and that you cannot create matter or energy, but the ZPF can, and does all the time.

I dont believe it is set in stone that Conservation of Energy is 'violated' here.

After all, we have very sound reasons for "believing" in the principle of Conservation of Energy, and a relatively poor understanding of the exact dynamics and interactions between the ZPF and particle interactions.



I would be interested in hearing a detailed response to the points raised by members here about the fact that the CMB is NOT "the ZPF".

 

[Singularitarian]

Sol's already explained one of the two (at least) absolutely key aspects of the CMB which are completely at odds with the key aspects of dark energy.

1) their present day densities are completely different - the energy density in radiation is currently a very tiny fraction of the critical density, but the energy density in dark energy is the major fraction of the critical density
2) their equations of state are completely different (which is a large chunk of the reason for (1)) - and as radiation has such a completely different equation of state it cannot in any way be what is needed for dark energy - it's just way off the mark.

They're utterly utterly different, and claiming that they are fundamentally linked as you are does not make you look like you know what you're talking about at all.

I enjoy an educated discussion, but not one that misses the relevent points. Take into consideration, have given the conditions which link similarities between all three components; the ZPF, the CMB and DE - these three components are homogeneous, made of a negative energy density, covers every corner of the imaginary space-line and time-line, making them a potential sea of energy. Each one of these three examples give a predicted energy far too inconsistent with the predicted energy required to the standard model of an error displacement of [latex]10^{122}[/latex] magntitudes.

What renormalizes this massive energy difference? Why is there more energy resident in the vacuum (which involves Einsteins Comsological *energy-density Constant [latex]\Lambda[/latex], than what should be allowed? These magnitudes to current theory suggest something renormalizes them.

If this is true, then it is possible the homogeneous CMB temperatures of electromagnetic energy in the real and potential form (being infinite in density) could renormalize the negative energy as to give a total energy condition within the vacuum.

 

[Singularitarian]

Energy density I believe is what Sol mentioned.






I dont believe it is set in stone that Conservation of Energy is 'violated' here.

After all, we have very sound reasons for "believing" in the principle of Conservation of Energy, and a relatively poor understanding of the exact dynamics and interactions between the ZPF and particle interactions.



I would be interested in hearing a detailed response to the points raised by members here about the fact that the CMB is NOT "the ZPF".

1) - Even if he did say energy density, if the ZPF defies the thermo-law constantly, which it does on a fundamental level, it matters not your arguement for the density of the vacuum continues to increase as more space and time expand, due to the laws of General Global Relativity Laws.

2) The violation of the creation has been proven. Just google, ''Zero-Point Energy From Nothing.''

3) Poorly understood, by anyone but me so far.

 

[Singularitarian]

"Thus zero-point energy would appear to be identical with the mysterious dark energy, but unfortunately if the energy spectrum does continue up to the Planck frequency, there may be 120 orders of magnitude more energy per cubic centimeter than the observations of cosmic acceleration permit."
from your link. While people are still working on this problem, there isn't a consensus that it's been solved and therefore it would be distinctly premature to label a connection between dark energy and quantum mechanical vacuum energy as 'proven'.

It seems to be the best candidate right now, but despite that we still essentially don't know what dark energy is, even if we might make some not too unreasonable guesses.

We might not know what it is, but we know its a descrepency somewhere in our work, even as wayward as these ellusive gravitational waves seems to be.

 

[edd]

Take into consideration, have given the conditions which link similarities between all three components; the ZPF, the CMB and DE - these three components are homogeneous

Well I'll give you *that*
[/quote] made of a negative energy density[/quote]
No, that's wrong.

covers every corner of the imaginary space-line and time-line

But the radiation is not at constant density over time where the DE, if a cosmological constant (which we don't know but presume currently is the case) is.

making them a potential sea of energy

I do not know what this means. You need to use words more carefully if you're going to get physicists (I am one) to understand what you mean.

Each one of these three examples give a predicted energy far too inconsistent with the predicted energy required to the standard model of an error displacement of [latex]10^{122}[/latex] magntitudes.

Well the CMB isn't even at a constant density so that's kind of pointless mentioning, and it's blatantly not vacuum energy anyway - the photons of it are as real as you and I and not in the slightest bit virtual.

You do not appear to understand what you are talking about.